Отозвать доступ к сегменту

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the successful response format ({"success": true}), but does not elaborate on effects such as whether an error occurs if the user has no existing grant, or whether the operation is truly idempotent in practice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence followed by the success response. Every element is necessary and no redundant information is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple revoke operation with two well-documented parameters, the description provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. It mentions the success response format, which is useful given the absence of an output schema. Missing details about error cases and idempotency behavior are minor gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions (segment_id and user_login), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Удаляет разрешение на управление сегментом у указанного пользователя' (deletes the permission to manage a segment from a specified user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_segment_grant (which grants access) and delete_segment (which deletes the segment entirely).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage context is implied by the description and sibling tools: it is the inverse of add_segment_grant. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where it should not be used.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.